People v. Cabote
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On November 12, 1995, Ramil Tero was killed by Agapito Cabote with a scythe. The prosecution's main witness, Florentino Avenido (brother-in-law of the accused), testified that ten days prior, the accused had warned Tero to stop visiting Jessa Ramos, threatening to hack his neck. On the night of the killing, Avenido saw the accused approach Tero, tuck a scythe under his shirt, and later, in an uninhabited area, hack Tero on the neck and head, causing his death. Avenido, an escaped detainee, delayed reporting the incident due to fear but did so after being rearrested. Dr. Maria Rena Rimando examined the cadaver and confirmed multiple hack wounds, with the cause of death being shock secondary to these wounds. Procedural History: The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Agapito Cabote of murder and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay civil indemnity and moral damages. The accused appealed the decision. The Petition: The accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the testimony of the lone prosecution eyewitness, Florentino Avenido, as it was not corroborated by other witnesses.
Issue(s)
Whether the testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction for murder. Whether the delay in reporting the crime by the eyewitness affects his credibility. Whether the killing was attended by treachery. Whether the killing was attended by evident premeditation. Whether the award for moral damages is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Agapito Cabote for murder with modification on the award of moral damages. The Court held that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if credible, is sufficient for conviction. Treachery was found to be present, but evident premeditation was not. The award for moral damages was increased.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the testimony of a lone eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction for murder: The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that the testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction, especially when it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity. The Court emphasized that witnesses are weighed, not numbered, and evidence is assessed in terms of quality, not quantity. The trial judge's assessment of credibility, having observed the witness firsthand, is given great weight. On whether the delay in reporting the crime by the eyewitness affects his credibility: The Court found that the six-month delay in Florentino Avenido's report was adequately explained. As an escaped detainee at the time of the incident, Avenido understandably wished to avoid drawing attention to himself. The Court noted that delay in reporting does not necessarily render testimony false or incredible, as it can be attributed to natural reticence or fear of involvement, which were present in Avenido's case due to his fugitive status. On whether the killing was attended by treachery: The Court found that the killing was treacherous. Treachery requires the employment of means that give the attacked person no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and the deliberate adoption of such means. The Court noted that Cabote hid the scythe, approached Tero in a seemingly non-hostile manner with his arm around Tero's shoulder, and then suddenly attacked him in an uninhabited area. This sudden and unexpected attack deprived the unarmed Tero of any real chance to defend himself or retaliate, thus ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. On whether the killing was attended by evident premeditation: The Court ruled that evident premeditation could not be appreciated. The elements of evident premeditation include the time the decision to commit the crime was made, an overt act indicating adherence to the determination, and a sufficient lapse of time between the decision and execution for reflection. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's attack was preceded by cool thought and reflection within the three-hour gap between his stated intention to kill Tero and the actual killing. On whether the award for moral damages is proper: The Court affirmed the award of civil indemnity and increased the moral damages from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00. The Court reasoned that current jurisprudence sets moral damages at P50,000.00 in murder cases. Furthermore, the Court reconsidered its policy, stating that a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish to the victim's family, thus moral damages must be awarded even without explicit allegation and proof of suffering.
Main Doctrine
The testimony of a lone eyewitness, if found positive and credible by the trial court, is sufficient to support a conviction, even if uncorroborated. Delay in reporting a crime does not necessarily render the testimony of a witness false or incredible, especially when there are justifiable reasons for such delay. Moral damages are awarded in murder or homicide cases even in the absence of proof of mental suffering by the heirs, as violent death invariably brings about emotional pain and anguish.